ENB:07:42 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

PART VII—REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING STATES

On Article 22, dealing with the recognition of the special requirements of developing States, Brazil proposed additional text to subparagraph (2) (b) to "ensure access to fisheries by" subsistence, small scale, "artisanal and women fish workers, as well as indigenous peoples" in developing countries. In subparagraph (2) (c) he proposed that the measures "do not hinder the development of fisheries for straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks". He said the text had been borrowed from one NGO paper circulated at the beginning of this session.

The delegate from the Philippines said the livelihoods of all those involved in fishing are at stake. Peru and Venezuela supported the Brazilian proposal and said that fish workers and their associations clearly understood the thrust of the proposal. Uruguay and Indonesia questioned whether the requirements of developing States actually meant "developing coastal States". The US expressed general satisfaction with the Chair's text and endorsed comments to improve the text to recognize the needs of small island developing States (SIDS).

Uruguay applauded the Brazilian proposal, which covers important social aspects of developing States, and supported Indonesia's suggestion that the text recognize any disproportionate burden should not be met by developing States.

Papua New Guinea said that in his country, fishing development is not just a matter of economic exploitation, but also one of nutritional exploitation. He said the Chair's draft text places emphasis on conservation and management, but hinders the development of fisheries of SFS and HMFS, thus creating a contradiction in terms.

Prior to concluding debate on the remainder of his text, the Chair recognized the delegate from Peru in consideration of Article 6 (bis) (Rev.1) dealing with interim measures in cases of emergency. Peru, supported by Canada, said the revision represented an attempt to incorporate comments made during the first reading of Article 6 (bis). He said the focus had changed in that coastal States can no longer refer to an attempt to extend their national jurisdictions. The revised article is to provide a solution to emergency situations that can arise due to unforeseen natural phenomena. The EU recognized the concept of establishing interim measures in an emergency, but expressed reservation on Peru's drafting style. He said paragraph (2) gives priority to the decisions of the coastal State and runs counter to Article 7, paragraph (2) dealing with compatibility. He expressed concern over the reference "the decision of an arbitral tribunal" and said the Chair's text would apply to any parties in a dispute. Uruguay said specific reference to an arbitral tribunal should not be made because that it would restrict other possibilities of dispute settlement. Israel said the Article title identifies too closely with that of Article 265 of UNCLOS and suggested another title be adopted.

Canada, the EU, Venezuela and Uruguay supported Japan's amendment proposal for Article 8, paragraph (6) on action taken by IGOs having competence with respect to living marine resources.